Latest Cases

Contract – Implied term. The claimant, a member of a limited liability partnership (the LLP), was required to leave. He tried to sell his interest in the LLP, but was unable to do so. He brought proceedings, contending that the defendants, who were also members of the LLP, had breached implied terms in preventing him from properly allowing examination of the interest that he sought to sell. The Chancery Division dismissed his claim, holding that it was wholly inappropriate to imply either of the terms pleaded by him. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Afghani national issued judicial review proceedings, challenging his immigration detention by the defendant Secretary of State. The Administrative Court rejected the claimant's challenge based on principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh ([1984] 1 All ER 983). However, it granted the claimant permission to raise a new ground, and found that his detention between 2 December and 7 December had been unlawful due to the defendant Secretary of State's failure to comply with her own policy of carrying out detention reviews. Accordingly, he would be granted nominal damages. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had run across a road, against the red man signal, when he was hit by one of the defendant's buses which had driven through an amber light. The Queen's Bench Division, in determining liability, held that, on the evidence, the claimant had been solely responsible for the accident. The driver had not been negligent in not having stopped at the lights and in not having used an emergency braking procedure whereas the claimant had been negligent in not having seen the bus when he should have and for having failed to take care for his own safety. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment for swindling and to face trial for driving without a licence. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, held that the fact that the appellant served had nearly two years' imprisonment overall was crucial and the reality was that, unless he was able to involve himself properly in family proceedings, the chances of him being able to maintain family unity were slight. 

Libel and slander – Damages. The claimant companies brought an action in defamation and libel against the defendants. The claimants were granted interim injunctions against each of the defendants and there was also an order made against the fifth defendant which related to solicitation of the claimants' customers and inducement of breach of contract. Judgment in default of defence was obtained by the claimants against the first, second, fourth and fifth defendants by order and the claimants applied for damages. The Queen's Bench Division held that the right award of general damages in the case of the first claimant was one of £75,000. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimant record companies applied for an injunction against the defendants, who were the five main retail internet service providers in the UK, requiring the defendants to take measures to block, access by their customers to websites which used peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol. The Chancery Division held that both users and the operators of the websites in issue had used the defendants' services to infringe the claimants' copyrights. The injunction was granted. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Latvia to face trial for two drug offences, concerning possession of small quantities of cannabis, with a minimum term of five years' imprisonment in the event of conviction. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that it was impossible to say that a minimum five-year sentence was proportionate. It was simply so disproportionate that extradition to face trial for that offence, risking conviction and the certainty on conviction of such a sentence would be disproportionate. 

Criminal law – Indecent assault. The defendant had been convicted of three offences of indecent assault contrary to s 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment on each count concurrent. The offences had taken place in the 1970s when the defendant was an Anglican priest and the complainant resident in a local authority care home. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction and held, amongst other things, that it had not been demonstrated to the judge that irredeemable prejudice had been done to the defendant's case as a result of missing contemporaneous records. The defendant's appeal against sentence was allowed and the sentence reduced to concurrent sentences of nine months' imprisonment. The court noted that the defendant's physical and mental health was steadily deteriorating. 

Practice – Parties. The Polish National Association of Tobacco Growers (KZPT) sought permission to intervene in judicial review proceedings, concerning the validity of European Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2014/40, which purported to impose prescriptive regulation upon the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products upon member states in the European Union. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it could not be concluded that KZPT had a useful contribution to make in the national litigation. Further, the connection between the legitimate interests of KZPT and the United Kingdom was very tenuous, and substantially unparticularised. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Afghan national issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the defendant Secretary of State had erred in granting him discretionary leave to remain, rather than indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, having concluded that illegality or error in the public law sense had not been established in relation to an earlier decision, there could be no basis for saying that the Secretary of State ought to have corrected an injustice by granting indefinite leave to remain.